GR 232437; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232437 , June 30, 2021
MARIO T. DE VERA, FLORENCE DE VERA SANICOLAS, TERESITA T. DE VERA, PURISIMA DE VERA ESTRADA, LOURDES T. DE VERA AND ROSALINDA DE VERA PASCUA, BY HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF HER CO-PETITIONERS, PETITIONERS, VS. VIRGILIO A. MANZANERO, ROGER MANZANERO, ARIEL MANZANERO, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners are the surviving children of Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr., who acquired a property in Las Piñas City from the National Housing Authority (NHA). Bernardo died in 1993 without completing payment. On September 9, 1995, respondent Virgilio Manzanero, then Barangay Chairman, forcibly took possession of the property, destroying structures thereon, allegedly based on an Affidavit of Waiver executed by petitioners’ mother, Emelie. Petitioners endured the taking and later filed various complaints with police and human rights agencies. In December 2013, petitioners paid the outstanding balance for the property to NHA. On June 19, 2014, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession against respondents before the RTC. Respondents claimed the property was sold to them by Emelie in 1994, attaching the Affidavit of Waiver. The RTC dismissed the complaint, ruling that petitioners and Emelie were co-owners of the inherited property, and the proper remedy was an action for judicial partition, not recovery of possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that the proper remedy for petitioners is to file an action for partition, not an action for recovery of possession.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that an action for recovery of possession is a proper remedy for a co-owner against a third party who unlawfully withholds possession of the common property, even before partition. The right to seek relief for the protection of one’s share in the co-ownership exists independently of any partition. Petitioners, as co-owners, have the right to bring an action to recover the entirety of the property from respondents, who are third persons claiming rights under a void or unenforceable document. The Affidavit of Waiver, being improperly notarized, is a private document that cannot bind petitioners who were not parties thereto. Furthermore, the property, being a socialized housing unit, could not be validly alienated under Republic Act No. 7279 . The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings on the merits of the action for recovery of possession.